← Back to context

Comment by recallingmemory

2 days ago

Yep, 1.6 trillion gallons of water from the Colorado river goes into irrigation for alfalfa[1]. Google's total water consumption across all data centers in 2023 was 6.4 billion gallons[2].

People are sounding the alarm about water usage in AI data centers while ignoring the real unsustainable industries like animal agriculture.

1: https://coloradosun.com/2024/04/04/research-colorado-river-w...

2: https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/google-emissions-...

Talking about wasteful. There 16,000 golf courses that use 312,000 gallons a day[1]. Thats 1.82 trillion gallons annually. Only 28 million people play golf course on a course. Google's MAU is 90%+ of US population, beef or milk consumptions i would guess that 90% of population consumes it at least once a month. We're focusing on things that everyone uses but the things that less than 10% of the populations partake in. Why do we have golf courses in arid regions that have severe water shortages? Before places like LA county spends $8 billion on a toilet to tap system[2], maybe shut down the golf courses first.

1. https://www.npr.org/2008/06/11/91363837/water-thirsty-golf-c...

2. https://www.mwdh2o.com/building-local-supplies/pure-water-so...

  • I'm mildly surprised that almost 10% of the US golfs. That makes the 0.3% of water usage from TFA seem less bad.

It’s a great example of using large numbers without context to scare people.

Say “6.4 billion gallons” in isolation and people will be horrified. Put it in context relative to something like alfalfa farming and it doesn’t even appear on the same scale.

And most of that alfalfa is owned by a Saudi conglomerate that then exports it to the other side of the planet to feed its dairy cattle

  • You pay for fuel for your car => Saudi monarchy gets it share because they supply it => while they completely waste 20% for “supercars” and vanity, they still have enough money to do whatever they want including => they grow alfalfa next to you to feed their local cattle

You are overlooking location. The ideal place to grow crops is a place with great soil, good weather, a long growing season, and abundant water, but there aren't a lot of those. Of those four things, water is the only one that can be reasonably transported.

Data centers have fewer constraints. It should be possible to place more or all of them in places where water is abundant.

  • My comment was just focused on total water use. I agree that location does matter, and that data centers should be placed where water is abundant.

    It still doesn't change my concern about how unsustainable growing alfalfa is. Trillions of gallons to grow an inefficient animal feed crop while we're told by the evening news to take shorter showers (8 minute shower is ~16 gallons of water) and let our lawns die.

  • You are overlooking location. The ideal place to place a datacenter is a place with cheap land, cheap electricity, good backbone connectivity, and close to users, but there aren't a lot of those.

Solar powered desalination seems like a no brainer in places like California.

  • Vastly cheaper to just have an efficient water market. But the current system makes farmer either use their water allocations for agriculture or not have that water at all.

Water is not evenly distributed.aData centers are not bieng located where there is excess water, they are bieng located in areas where they have access to the critical infrastucture they need,and the use of domestic potable water supplys to cool there operations is done as it reduces there land and infrastructure requirements, is quick, and they care nothing about the costs of electricity and water, while they drive up costs for the people who live in the surounding areas. People NEED water, data does not. People NEED agriculture, they do not NEED data. conflating the water uses of things to people is false.